reasonably prudent man inquiry in South Carolina

1949McGee v. French, 49 S. C. 454, 27 S. E. 487 .” Huestess v. South Atlantic Life Insurance Company, supra [88 S. C. 31, 70 S. E. 406 ].

1923McGee v. French, 49 S. C., 454; 27 S. E., 487 .

1989Moore v. Hardaway Contracting Co., supra.

1956Able v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 186 S. C. 26, 194 S. E. 628 ; Abercrombie v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 214 S. C. 350, 52 S. E. (2d) 400 .

1956Able v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 186 S. C. 26, 194 S. E. 628 ; Abercrombie v. Pilot Life Insurance Co., 214 S. C. 350, 52 S. E. (2d) 400 .

1954Under an indictment charging a persomwith receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, it is not a question of what effect the circumstances under which the goods were received would have upon the mind of a person of ordinary reason, judgment, and prudence, but the question to be answered is, What effect did such circumstances have upon the mind of the person receiving the goods ?” And the more recent case of State v. White, 211 S. C. 276, 44 S. E. (2d) 741, 742 , is conclusive of this question wherein it is said “facts sufficient to put a reasonably prudent man on inquiry are not

1954Under an indictment charging a persomwith receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, it is not a question of what effect the circumstances under which the goods were received would have upon the mind of a person of ordinary reason, judgment, and prudence, but the question to be answered is, What effect did such circumstances have upon the mind of the person receiving the goods ?” And the more recent case of State v. White, 211 S. C. 276, 44 S. E. (2d) 741, 742 , is conclusive of this question wherein it is said “facts sufficient to put a reasonably prudent man on inquiry are not

1954Under an indictment charging a persomwith receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, it is not a question of what effect the circumstances under which the goods were received would have upon the mind of a person of ordinary reason, judgment, and prudence, but the question to be answered is, What effect did such circumstances have upon the mind of the person receiving the goods ?” And the more recent case of State v. White, 211 S. C. 276, 44 S. E. (2d) 741, 742 , is conclusive of this question wherein it is said “facts sufficient to put a reasonably prudent man on inquiry are not

1930In Allison v. White, 285 Ill., 311 , 120 N. E., 809 , it was held that a purchaser is chargeable with notice of what ap *289 pears on record concerning his chain of title, and, where facts appear which would put a reasonably prudent man on inquiry, he is chargeable with that knowledge which would have been discovered by diligent inquiry.

1930In Allison v. White, 285 Ill., 311 , 120 N. E., 809 , it was held that a purchaser is chargeable with notice of what ap *289 pears on record concerning his chain of title, and, where facts appear which would put a reasonably prudent man on inquiry, he is chargeable with that knowledge which would have been discovered by diligent inquiry.

1930In Simmons v. Simmons, 85 W.

1930App.), 213 S. W., 261 , it was held that land purchasers are charged with knowledge of all facts appearing in recorded instruments, and, where circumstances appear in chain of title sufficient to put a reasonably prudent man on inquiry, the purchaser is charged with knowledge of facts which might have been discovered by reasonable inquiry.